Legge di Cardwell

Riccardo Mariani

20 min · 

Amazon

 · 

Legge di Cardwell: anche il più scatenato degli innovatori, dopo aver acquisito il monopolio, si trincera nei suoi privilegi e combatte fino all'ultimo sangue ogni forma di innovazione ulteriore.

Memore di questo insegnamento, il saggio conclude: edifica il tuo impero e fanne una frontiera perenne in modo che ognuno si senta minacciato nei suoi privilegi.

#Amazon

Seasteading: How Floating Nations Will Restore the Environment, Enrich the Poor, Cure the Sick, and Liberate Humanity from Politicians

AMAZON.COM

Mi piace

10. Identità, speranza e innovazione

L'investitore è overconfident. Commercia troppo e diversifica troppo poco.

Teoria alternativa del rischio. Le persone che scommettono contro il rendimento altrui. Il benchmark è relativo e non assoluto. Molto rischio è preso sulla base di una speranza e non di un calcolo.

La gente una volta che possiede qualcosa di sicuro si lascia andare. Basta Una specie di scialuppa di salvataggio. Una volta allocato parte dal suo portafoglio si sente libera di operare secondo elementi come gusto e speranza.

Nei mercati finanziari non si arricchisce chi investe Ma i broker.

Perché non sfruttiamo la diversificazione. Nemmeno in ambiti come la salute, la casa, l'auto? Perché abbiamo la casa di proprietà invece che in affitto? Quest'ultima soluzione diversifica rebbe maggiormente i rischi.

Perché la speranza è qualcosa di fondamentale è insito in noi. La speranza è relativa al sogno. Al desiderio. All'identità. La speranza è un bisogno. Può essere l'elemento che scollega il rischio dal compenso.

Speranza e overconfidence. L'idea di essere particolarmente dotati in un ambito della vita. Sogniamo di iniziare la nostra impresa. Il nostro progetto. Di saper compiere un passo nell'ignoto e di innovare. La speranza stimola un coraggio intellettuale. Il contrario della prudenza, Ovvero della razionalità. Provocati  insistiamo ancor di più. Testardaggine. L'umiliazione ci incoraggia invece di farci desistere. Prendere rischi ci causa ansia ma non possiamo evitarlo.

Il coraggio intellettuale è ammirato solo a posteriori, a priori è visto come una scelleratezza. Il caso di Galileo Galilei lo rende chiaro: se avesse fallito sarebbe stato giudicato uno stupido poiché si è accollato i classici rischi che  solo lo stupido si prende, con veramente poche prove a supporto delle sue tesi.

Che differenza c'è tra giocare e investire? La differenza è sfumata e il concetto di speranza la rende tale. Già in Keynes era chiaro. Ogni cattiva idea ha comunque delle buone possibilità di riuscire vincente.

Tanti giocatori di successo sono presentati come saggi investitori. Tutto questo incoraggia il gioco.

Il fattore speranza ci fa concludere che prendere rischi è comunque soggetto ad una ottimizzazione. Utilitarismo degli atti contro utilitarismo delle regole.

Ultimatum game. Ti vengono dati €100 e puoi tenertele se prendo quello che vuoi ad un terzo soggetto costui oggetto. Agire razionalmente vuol dire offrire a terzo soggetto €1 o comunque la somma più basso possibile. Ma noi sappiamo che Costui non accetterà. La regola quindi è quella di offrire una cifra congrua per esempio un venti per cento </percent>. È una regola  irrazionale da un punto di vista strettamente utilitaristico Ma è una regola che massimizza il benessere complessivo.

Utilitarismo degli atti. Massimizza l'utilità individuale. Utilitarismo delle regole. Si seguono regole che massimizzano il benessere complessivo. E quindi anche quello individuale poiché l'individuo fa parte di una comunità prospera. Robert aumann

Anche prendere dei rischi è un comportamento irrazionale che ubbidisce ad una regola corretta. Avere dei sogni avere un proprio progetto nutrire una propria speranza è la cosa giusta da fare. Speranza, ottimismo, felicità, salute.

Inoltre, per la comunità gli innovatori, ovvero chi prende rischi irrazionali da un punto di vista prudenziale, sono una manna. L'innovatore produce beni con esternalità positive molto elevate.

Cervelli, non stomaci

Riccardo Mariani

13 h · 

Il fatto non è che ricchezza e popolazione crescano insieme.

Questo lascerebbe in campo comunque due ipotesi antitetiche: 1) la popolazione cresce perché ci sono più risorse da consumare, oppure 2) le produzione di ricchezza cresce perché ci sono più cervelli e quindi più idee innovative su come produrre.

Il fatto è che popolazione e ricchezza PRO CAPITE crescano insieme.

Questo spazza via la prima ipotesi per lasciare campo libero alla seconda.

Non siamo stomaci ma cervelli.

Popolazione e ricchezza pro-capite crescono insieme.

Malthus sconfitto.

Siamo cervelli, non stomaci!

Misure per diventare un paese innovativo

Global Index of Innovation Guarda come È collocato in questa classifica il tuo paese.

limitare sistema dei brevetti. Trovare delle alternative come per esempio i premi.

Pagare meglio gli insegnanti e in cambio creare competizione e flessibilità nella scuola.

Meno gente all'università. Disincentivare le facoltà umanistiche e incentivare le scuole professionali.

Incoraggiare l'emigrazione di soggetti scolarizzati.

Meno spesa sociale e più spese di ricerca.

Meno regole specie sul rischio da innovazione.

Globalizzazione. Il motto deve essere un'idea, un mondo, un mercato.

Il nostro mondo ha molte sfide davanti. Occorrono molte soluzioni. L'innovazione e la soluzione universale.

Dedonmilanesizziamo la laurea!

Dedonmilanesizziamo la laurea!

College has been oversold – Launching The Innovation Renaissance: A New Path to Bring Smart Ideas to Market Fast – Alex Tabarrok

***

Tesi: l’alluvione di matricole nuoce al sistema, l’università di massa è una iattura.

***

Looking at the flood of students on college and university campuses, the education stagnation isn’t obvious.65 Enrollment is at an all-time high, and a greater percentage of high school graduates than ever will attend college.66 Look below the surface, however, and the stagnation remains.

Note:STAGNAZIONE EDUCATIVA E ALLUVIONE DI MATRICOLE

Only 35 percent of students in a four-year degree program will graduate within four years, and less than 60 percent will graduate within six years.

Note:POCHI IN CORSO

A college degree does pay for most people. College graduates earn about double what high school graduates earn, and high school graduates earn significantly more than dropouts… In 2010, the unemployment rate among high school dropouts was close to 15 percent; it was about 5 percent for college graduates. More education is even associated with better life satisfaction, lower divorce rates and less criminality,…

COLLEGE PREMIUM

College has been oversold, and in the process the amount of education actually going on in college has declined as colleges have dumbed down classes and inflated grades to accommodate students who would be better off in apprentice and on-the-job training programs. As the number of students attending college has grown, the number of workers with university education but high school jobs has increased. Baggage porters and bellhops don’t need college degrees, but in 2008 17.4 percent of them had at least a bachelor’s degree and 45 percent had some college education.

Note:EDUCAZIONE DI MASSA E SVALUTAZIONE DELLA LAUREA

More than half of the college graduates in the humanities end up in jobs that do not require a college degree. Not surprisingly, these graduates do not get a big “college bonus.”

Note:LAURAETI NON COLLOCATI

It may seem odd that at the same time that the United States is failing to get people through high school, it is also pushing too many students into college. But let’s compare the situation with Germany’s. As we said earlier, 97 percent of German students graduate from high school, but only a third of these students go on to college. In the United States we graduate fewer students from high school, but nearly two-thirds of those we graduate go to college, almost twice as many as in Germany.73 So are German students undereducated? Not at all… It’s not just Germany that uses apprenticeship and training programs. In Austria, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland between 40 to 70 percent of students opt for an educational program that combines classroom and workplace learning….

Note:GERMANIA E SCUOLE PROFESSIONALI

The U.S. has paved a single road to knowledge, the road through the classroom. “Sit down, stay quiet, and absorb. Do this for 12 to 16 years,” we tell the students,

Note:LA SCUOLA UNICA

American students are also not studying the fields with the greatest potential for increasing economic growth. In 2009 the U.S. graduated 37,994 students with bachelor’s degrees in computer and information science. Not bad, but here is the surprise: We graduated more students with computer science degrees 25 years ago! In comparison, the U.S. graduated 89,140 students in the visual and performing arts in 2009 — more than double the number of 25 years ago! Figure three shows some of the relevant data. Few fields have been as revolutionized in recent years as microbiology, but in 2009 we graduated just 2,480 students with bachelor’s degrees in microbiology — about the same number as 25 years ago. Who will solve the problem of antibiotic resistance? The U.S. graduated just 5,036 chemical engineers in 2009, no more than we did 25 years ago. In electrical engineering there were 11,619 graduates in 2009, about half the number of 25 years ago. In mathematics and statistics there were 15,496 graduates in 2009, slightly more than the 15,009 graduates of 1985. In comparison, the U.S. graduated just under 40,000 students in psychology 25 years ago but nearly 95,000 today. Perhaps most oddly, the number of students in journalism (!) and communications has nearly doubled in 25 years, rising to 83,109 graduates in 2009. Ask your bellhop for more details. Bear in mind that over the past 25 years the total number of students in college has increased by about 50% so the number of graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics has stagnated even as the total number of students has increased. Figure Three: Math and Science Degrees have Stagnated… There is nothing wrong with the arts, psychology and journalism, but graduates in these fields are less likely to find work in their field than graduates in computer science, microbiology and chemical engineering.

Note:LE LAUREE SBAGLIATE

Economic growth is not a magic totem to which all else must bow, but it is the primary reason we subsidize higher education. The wage gains for college graduates go to the graduates — that’s reason enough for students to pursue a college education. We add subsidies on top of the higher wages because we believe that education has positive spillovers, benefits that flow to society. The biggest positive spillover is the increase in innovation… an argument can be made for subsidizing students in fields with potentially large spillovers, such as microbiology, chemical engineering, nuclear physics and computer science. There is little justification for subsidizing sociology, dance and English majors….

Note:TORNIAMO AI FONDAMENTALI: PERCHÈ FINANZIARE L’ UNIVERSITA’?

Assistenza o innovazione?

Launching The Innovation Renaissance: A New Path to Bring Smart Ideas to Market Fast by Alex Tabarrok

***

Problema: ora cha abbiamo colto tutti i “frutti bassi” del progresso, come tornare ad essere innovativi?

***

A cathedral rises

The Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore began to rise in 1296. From father to son, to son again, the architects, stonemasons and artists of Florence labored with love and devotion to produce the greatest cathedral the world had ever known.

Note:SANTA MARIA DEL FIORE

Unsure of how to proceed, the Arte della Lana, the guild of wool merchants who sponsored the cathedral, announced a prize: 200 florins and the commission would go to the best proposal to build the dome.1 Many entries were received, but the guild settled on the plan of Filippo Brunelleschi. The brilliant Brunelleschi had to invent new tools and techniques, but he proved up to the task and the dome was completed in 1436. For nearly 450 years it remained the largest in the world.

Note:PREMIO A BRUNELLESCHI DALLA GILDA DELLA LANA

in 1474 nearby Venice passed the world’s first general patent law.

Note:PRIMO BREVETTO

Florence provided a free public education in reading, writing and arithmetic. Private schools and tutors, for both children and adults, were also unusually common.4 As a result, literacy rates were high as was commercial numeracy.

Note:LA SCUOLA DI FIRENZE

The Florentines were obsessed with innovation because they lived by their wits. Florence had few natural resources. The wool merchants, for example, imported wool from England and alum and dyes from Turkey, India and the Middle East. Combining this raw material with sophisticated technology, they produced rich textiles that they exported around the world.

Note:OSSESSIONATI DALL’INNOVAZIONE

Competition in world markets meant that the Florentines had to innovate to prosper, but world markets also gave them the means to prosper.

Note:COMPETIZIONE + GLOBALIZZAZIONE => INNOVAZIONE

Trade also benefited the Florentines by bringing them into contact with the world’s best ideas. Islamic artistry in silk, ceramics and metal inspired the Florentines, as did unmatched Chinese porcelain.

Note:COMMERCIO E APERTURA MENTALE

Thus, in Florence, the epicenter of the Renaissance, we see five factors propelling that city’s innovation: patents, prizes, education, global markets, and cosmopolitanism, an openness to ideas from around the world.

Note:I 5 PROPULSORI DELL’INNOVAZIONE

the early 21st century has not been kind to the United States… Most significantly, productivity growth, our best measure of innovation, fell dramatically in the United States in the post-1973 era and has not yet picked up again. The United States needs to innovate to thrive..

Note:XXI SEXOLO: ESORDIO PREOCCUPANTE

Innovation nation versus the warfare-welfare state

at the level of government, the innovation nation competes with the warfare and welfare state.

Note:CHI SPIAZZA L’INNOVAZIONE?

Together the warfare and welfare states, counting only the big four of defense, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, eat up $2.2 trillion, or nearly two-thirds of the U.S. federal budget. In contrast the National Institutes of Health, which funds medical research, spends $31 billion annually, and the National Science Foundation spends about $7 billion

Note:I 2/3

The point is not simply that the U.S. should spend more money but that a state with these kinds of budget priorities does not have innovation at the center of its vision. If innovation is not central to the vision, then it is inevitably given short shrift.

Note:OGGI L’INNOVAZIONE NON È AL CENTRO

How would the innovative state approach the issue of health care? From an innovation perspective two facts about health care are of great importance. First, a huge amount of health care spending is wasted. A strong consensus exists on this point from health care researchers all along the political spectrum.86 More money will get you a much bigger house, but once you have basic health insurance more money won’t get you much better health care. Should Bill Gates get prostate cancer, his billions will get him a private room and a personal physician, but they won’t do much to extend his lifespan beyond that of a middle-class man with the same disease. But when you are dying, you don’t have much reason not to waste resources on health care, especially if they are someone else’s resources, so if not constrained you will willingly spend a lot to get little or nothing… The second fact is that although spending more on health care now doesn’t get you much, spending more on health care research gets you a lot.

Note:ESEMPIO DELLA SANITÀ: CURA O RICERCA?

Looking at the future, if medical research could reduce cancer mortality by just 10 percent, it would be worth $5 trillion to U.S. citizens (and even more taking into account the rest of the world). The net gain would be especially large if we could reduce cancer mortality with new drugs, which are typically cheap to make once discovered.

Note:QUANTO RENDE LA RICERCA?

Regulation is another area in which we have failed to put innovation at the center of our thinking. There are good regulations and bad regulations and lots of debate over which is which… even if each regulation is good, the net effect of all the regulations combined may be bad….

Note:REGOLE E INNOVAZIONE

Building in the United States today, for example, requires navigating a thicket of environmental, zoning and aesthetic regulations that vary not only state by state but also county by county. If building a house is difficult, try building an airport. Passenger travel has more than tripled since deregulation in 1978, but in that time only one major new airport has been built, namely, Denver’s. That airport is now the fourth busiest in the world. Indeed the top seven busiest airports are all in the United States, not so much because we are big but because without new construction we are forced to overcrowd our existing infrastructure.89 The result is delays and inefficiency. Meanwhile, China is building 50 to 100 new airports over the next 10 years.

Note:PROVA A COSTRUIRE UN AEROPORTO

The U.S. Department of Energy, for example, estimates that small and environmentally friendly hydro-electric projects could generate at least 30,000 MWs of power annually. That’s equivalent to the generating capacity of about 30 nuclear power plants. Moreover, since 97% of U.S. dams are generating zero power today, these projects would not require building any new dams. So what’s the problem? The problem is that building even a small hydro-electric project requires the approval of numerous agencies,

Note:PROVA A COSTRUIRE UNA DIGA

Our ancestors were bold and industrious—they built a significant portion of our energy and road infrastructure more than half a century ago. It would be almost impossible to build the system today. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the infrastructure of our past to travel to our future.

Note:IMPOSSIBILE IMITARE I NOSTRI PADRI

Moreover, few people lobby for innovation because almost by definition, innovation creates present losers and future winners and the present losers are by far the more politically powerful. Innovation has few champions.

NIENTE LOBBY PER IL “FUTURO”